Kirk Leech2015-03-03T15:40:41-05:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=kirk-leechCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Kirk LeechGood old fashioned elbow grease.A Reply to the BUAVtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.59391522014-10-06T10:44:56-04:002014-12-18T07:59:01-05:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-leech/European Animal Research Association (EARA) over comments on our website that challenged claims made following an undercover investigation at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tubingen, Germany, by their partner group Soko-Tierschutz.
Neuroscience research on macaques at the Max Planck Institute, Tubingen (MPI): a reply to the BUAV

The BUAV and their German counterparts, Soko-Tierschutz, claim that their joint undercover investigation at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tubingen Germany revealed 'the shocking and disturbing truth about what happens to monkeys behind closed doors'. They assert that they 'uncovered the brutal way in which monkeys' lives were controlled and manipulated by researchers, causing severe suffering'. They have called for all licenses to conduct research on primates at the institute to be suspended immediately.

The selectively edited film, with sombre music and lurid descriptions, has indeed had the media impact they sought, particularly in Germany. However, as has now become a pattern with BUAV-inspired, undercover filming, their initial wild claims - which some sections of the media print uncritically - end up being much less than the sum of their parts. When these accusations are investigated, either by the Institution involved or (in the UK) by the Home Office's Animals in Science Regulation Unit the hyped claims simply do not hold up.

The film clips taken at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics are not easy on the eye but neither is human surgery. There is shock value in showing Non-Human Primates (NHPs) with cranial implants, bleeding from head wounds and in some post-surgery discomfort. The Max Planck Society has challenged the selective editing of the film, which was shown on German television. It believes the clever editing created a narrative meant to make any understanding of what is actually happening in their animal research facilities impossible to understand.

Without context and an explanation of the benefits that have come from NHPs in research, such invasive techniques can be hard for some people to stomach. NHP's are the most suitable animal model to study brain functions. Moreover, animal research is only licensed when no alternative is available. Research by the Max Planck Institute has improved the lives of millions of people through advances in the ability to diagnose patients with brain injuries, stroke and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's, a disease that is estimated to affect 6.3 million people worldwide and 1.2 million people in Europe.

The Max Planck Society responded to the release of the film by commissioning an independent expert investigation led by Professor Stefan Treue, Head of the German Primate Center. He looked into the treatment of the animals and the nature and scope of medical care provided at the Institute. His investigation found that the accusations of institutional mistreatment of primates were without substance; there was no evidence of neglect. His report makes the point that any medical intervention, whether on humans or animals, always carries risks such as that of post-operative haemorrhage or suture insufficiency. His report recommends modifications to the Institute's animal care regime but does not, despite the BUAV's allegations, consider it to be a broken system. Professor Treue saw no indications that animals were neglected.

The Max Planck Society responded to calls by the BUAV to halt NHP research at the Institute by issuing a robust statement explaining the continued need for animal research, specifically the need for the continued use of NHPs which, they state, 'remain a necessary aspect of research in the interests of resolving issues that are central to science and of establishing a basis for new approaches to medical treatments'.

The BUAV claim to be upset with the suggestion that their film was carefully edited to support their accusations about the animal care regime at the Institute. However, as is becoming clear, the BUAV are repeat offenders when it comes to exaggerated claims following undercover filming. A report released last week by the UK Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) into two BUAV undercover infiltrations of UK research facilities reveals that what the BUAV claimed in the initial release of their film bears little relation to what was reported by subsequent formal investigations.

In April 2013 The Sunday Times ran a story based on BUAV undercover filming at Imperial College London. The article claimed that staff 'breached welfare standards by mistreating laboratory animals ' and that their investigation had 'shown the terrible suffering of animals in a supposedly leading UK university'.

The BUAV provided the ASRU with a detailed report and accompanying film footage. They made over 180 allegations including: 'very large scale appalling animal suffering; unlawful regulations by the Home Office; inadequate care of animals by establishment staff; [and] inadequate enforcement by the Inspectorate'.

The ASRU findings released last week must make difficult reading for the BUAV and their supporters. Over 180 individual allegations of non-compliance with the UK law that govern animal research - Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 (ASPA) - were investigated. Of these only five formal non-compliance cases were substantiated. The report suggests that there may have been some animal welfare implications but '[these did] not involve significant, avoidable or unnecessary pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm'.

The report also suggested that the infiltrator was more interested in filming what they believed to be cruelty to animals rather than alleviating the discomfort or distress that they were witnessing. As the report outlines, 'No concerns about animal welfare were recorded as raised by the investigator with the agency. Similarly, the investigator from the animal rights organisation did not raise concerns through the recognized whistle blowing policy in place at the Establishment.' It appears that banner headlines and shock are more important to the BUAV than reporting perceived animal cruelty.

The ASRU has also investigated the accusations from a second BUAV infiltration. In March of this year, the Sunday Express ran a story based on undercover filming of research on veterinary medicines at MSD Animal Health. The article supposedly shone a light on the 'secret world of vivisection laboratories where puppies as young as four weeks old are taken from their mothers and killed'. The story claimed to have evidence of 'horrific photographs and video footage showing puppies panicking as they were injected with needles before being dissected'.

The Report by the ASRU has a different take: 'Our detailed investigations and review of available records and other evidence does not support the allegations in the investigation report'. It goes on to add, "Our findings confirm that the site is well managed with staff at all levels committed to the provision of appropriate standards of welfare and care within the constraints of the scientific requirements of the research."

So here again the initial claims on the release of the film, which are meant to shock audiences, turned out to be little more than schlock. It is about time that the media began to adopt a more critical approach claims by the BUAV before running stories that later prove to lack all substance.

The BUAV boast of having spent, in 2013, £200,000 - that is 15% of its annual expenditure - on undercover infiltrations. Its backers obviously need to see some return on this investment. Keeping this money rolling in may help to explain the increasingly desperate and exaggerated claims which accompany each new 'scoop' or exposé by the organisation.

It is highly likely that this tactic of infiltrations and undercover filming, much used in the USA and UK, will be increasingly employed by European activists opposed to research using animals.

The purpose of this undercover activity is not to improve the health and welfare of laboratory animals but to send exaggerated shock messages to the public through national news media implying that scientists cannot be trusted with the care of animals with the ultimate aim of ending all research using animals.]]>Keep Research Flyingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.53122372014-05-14T04:29:59-04:002014-07-13T05:59:03-04:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-leech/"Air France Sucks" for Sending Monkeys to Labs. That the singer is known to have kept monkeys as pets seems to have escaped the group's opportunist propaganda eyes. Yet Bieber joins a growing number of celebrities, including UK comic Ricky Gervais and US actor James Cromwell, who have put their names to campaigns by PETA and the British Union Against Vivisection (BUAV) to stop Air France from transporting non-human primates (NHPs) for biomedical research into the EU and the USA. Air France is currently the only commercial airline prepared to do so.

The campaign to stop research involving NHPs has also become pretty nasty in Germany. The group Tierversuchsgegner Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Opponents of Animal Experiments Federal Republic of Germany) recently placed a belligerent full-page advertisement in two national and three regional newspapers. The advertisement directed much of its venom toward Professor Andreas Kreiter, a neurobiologist from the University of Bremen, whose research on NHPs includes working towards treatments of epilepsy and the control of prosthetic devices.

The advertisement shows a photograph of Kreiter placed next to that of a primate with a number tattooed onto its chest and its head held against movement during an experiment. An opening quote attributed to neurologist and animal protectionist Herbert Stiller reads, "Animal experimenters are a particular type of creature - one should not casually call them human". This was a conscious attempt to link the work of Kreiter to that of National Socialism and the Holocaust. It is also worth remembering that the category of sub human was used by the Nazis to dehumanize Jews, gypsies and the handicapped as justification for their extermination.

In response, the German Alliance of Science Organisations (which includes some of the country's most influential organisations such as the Max Planck Society, the Conference of University Rectors and the German National Academy of Sciences) released a statement condemning the article, and making the case as to why animal research is necessary.
Whilst this public support for animal research is to be welcomed, in many German cities daily protests against the transportation of NHPs take place outside the offices of Air France and at airports. These protests, which have involved criminal activity, pass with little comment from the German scientific community or from German patient groups who rely on research involving NHPs for their disease areas. PETA and the BUAV clearly think they have the winning hand in their campaign to halt NHP research and stop the last airline prepared to transport animals.
Let's for one moment imagine that this campaign had taken place say 30 years ago; that it had been successful in the 1980's in halting the transport of primates and research. What discoveries, what advances in scientific understanding involving NHP's over the past 30 years would we not have today?

Here are four examples:

1) Parkinson's disease: Research using non-human primates has been critical to developing life-changing treatment for Parkinson's disease. Dopaminergic therapies, deep brain stimulation to reduce tremor, and constraint-induced movement therapy all resulted from research on NHPs
2) HIV/AIDS: The introduction of the antiretroviral therapy (ART), developed using NHP models, has dramatically reduced the morbidity and mortality of those infected with HIV.
3) Macular Degeneration: Surgical treatment for macular degeneration has come through research involving primates.
4) Stroke: New techniques in stroke rehabilitation therapy have been developed through research involving primates.

And there are plenty more.

If all airlines had taken the decision in the 1980's that PETA and the BUAV are trying to force Air France to do now, then our quest to understand and treat infections and diseases associated with human physiological processes such as ageing, reproduction, endocrine function, metabolism, and neurology would have been set back decades.

Monkeys are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Insights into human disease may be obtained from other animals but studies using primates are especially valuable. That said, research primates are used in relatively small numbers (currently 0.05% of all animal use in the EU) but they remain of essential use. A recent article in the American Journal of Primatology set out the issues surrounding research NHPs very well, "We are at a critical crossroads in our society and unless NHP research is given the philosophical, emotional, and financial support and infrastructure that is needed to sustain it and grow, we are in danger of losing irreplaceable unique models and thus, our ability to continue to explore and understand, and develop preventions and treatments for numerous conditions that inflict great suffering on humans."

It is a credit to Air France that they continue to transport NHPs for bio-medical research. If campaigners are successful in halting the transportation of NHPs they won't think 'job done' and put their feet up. Emboldened by their victory they will move onto all other animal models. Global biomedical research is reliant on the air transport of research animals. Many significant advances in modern medicine have been based on research involving primates. If we want this to continue, we need to Keep Research Flying. The European Animal Research Association intends on making the European public and decision makers aware of this in the coming period.]]>A Wanker's Chartertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13944432012-04-01T04:37:21-04:002012-05-31T05:12:02-04:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-leech/
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) immediately announces that it is investigating the case. After finding and imprisoning the miscreant, the CPS announces that not only will England's next test series be played behind closed doors, but that the match result is declared null and void, and the series drawn.

One does not have to be a cricket fan to imagine the press, political and public reaction to that imagined scenario. Yet that is exactly what Nick Hawkins, the CPS lead on football and sports prosecutions, is advocating for football clubs who do not to take firm action against fans who make obscene chants and racial slurs.

In the wake of a Welsh student being jailed for making obscene comments on Twitter about Fabrice Muamba, Hawkins gave a lecture at the University of Portsmouth entitled "Crossing the line - when sport becomes a crime."

Hawkins said attitudes towards abusive chanting by the football association and clubs have been too lenient. He said it is time to hit the clubs and not just the fans, "One area where I would argue we need more support from sports authorities is in dealing with inappropriate crowd behaviour and, in particular, chanting". He went on to say that "Making clubs play games behind closed doors hits them in their pockets, and deducting league points lessens a club's chance of qualifying for Europe or promotion, again hitting them financially".

Hawkins gave a number of examples of chants at stadiums and asked the audience to assess whether they considered them acceptable, "I would strongly urge clubs to stop their fans singing some of their more choice chants - do Pompey fans really need to sing about 'hitting scummers [what some Portsmouth fans call Southampton supporters] with a brick'? - and called for the authorities to take action over clubs that fail to do so if these abusive chants become a habit."

One can imagine the public outcry would Hawkins highlight the chanting and slurs at Twickenham, Lords, or The DW Stadium - when Wigan Warriors rugby league team are at home and demand similar sanctions. But Hawkins won't, because football and football fans are treated very differently. In Scotland, the Offensive Behaviour at Footballand Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 makes it explicit that football fans are no longer equal with others before the law since they can be arrested and convicted of 'offences' - such as singing on a train - which would not be illegal for anybody else. As the Times football editor Tony Evans pointed out in his recent excellent column, there is no shortage of laws in England aimed specifically at football fans either, from football banning orders and public-order measures to alcohol bans and the forced surrendering of your passport.

Hawkins' proposal is part of the growing attempt to create a new etiquette in football. They are trying to use football to teach the 'mob' a lesson about how to behave. His idea is a victim's charter. It is an open invitation for people to take offence and turns fans into spies who spend more time keeping a watchful eye on opposition supporters and reporting what they don't like to hear, than supporting their team. In Scotland, some fans of Celtic and Rangers carry this search for offensive to trailing through their opposite fans websites in search of being offended, to then report it to the police, in the hope that the club may be fined. What's next, Sunderland fans buying tickets to sit with Newcastle fans, hoping that their daft chants will impact on the club?

It's a wanker's charter and should be opposed.]]>In Defence of Foie Grastag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11551912011-12-19T19:00:00-05:002012-02-18T05:12:02-05:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-leech/Dame Vera Lyn had became the latest celebrity to demand that Fortnum & Mason stop selling foie gras. On-going campaigns by animal rights activists, often using celebrity influence, have led many shops and restaurants to remove foie gras from their shelves and menus.

Unfortunately, the newspaper decided not to run the piece because they were fearful of being 'targeted' by animal rights campaigners. There is no record of any newspaper being harassed or pilloried for running articles discussing the merits of foie gras. But what if there had been? Clearly this newspaper is not the modern day Thundererbut such self-censorship reflects badly on the state of journalism in the UK.

This loss of nerve also massively exaggerates the reach of animal rights activists. These groups pick on soft targets - small family run restaurants and posh shops - who they believe won't be able to mobilise public opinion. This is an example of what happened one day in Yorkshire last week.

On Friday 9 December a small group of animal rights activists 'targeted' a list of Yorkshire based restaurants that serve foie gras. Van Zeller, a restaurant in Harrogate was subjected to a short but noisy demonstration. The protestors then made their way to the small village of Ramsgill where they protested outside the Yorke Arms Hotel. From there they moved onto Bolton Abbey, near Skipton where the Devonshire Arms Hotel was 'targeted'. Their activities included leafleting customers as they arrived to eat and making speeches condemning foie gras outside the establishments. Occasionally they book tables and then when seated stand up and denounce foie gras in front of other customers.

Most restaurants and shops don't need the hassle of these protests and cave in to this degree of pressure. Only this week Brook's, in Brighouse Yorkshire, and Six Baltic, based in the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art on the river Tyne, became the latest restaurants to drop foie gras, after protests led by the so called Northern Animal Rights Network.

Were it that all campaigns could be won with such little effort. In the past, animal rights activists have been known to participate in illegal and occasionally violent attacks against their opposition. Now it's phone calls, emails and small protests.

Low input activism this maybe, but it's clearly effective. Cowardice aside, when an established newspaper feels that it can't publish an article defending a perfectly legal practice - the selling of foie gras - because they fear a response, it's a clear sign that the activists are winning. And they are in more insidious ways than not being able to order this tasty treat at your next special outing.
Aided by a supine and scaredy - cat media even debating and discussing foie gras is being ruled out.

Thankfully the Huffington Post is not as craven. Here is the spiked article.

Second World War songstress Dame Vera Lynn is the latest celebrity to join the list of prominent figures - including Sir Roger Moore, Ricky Gervais, the Duchess of Hamilton and twitcher Bill Oddie - who have appealed to high end store Fortnum & Mason, one of the last remaining London shops selling foie gras, to pull the enlarged goose liver from its shelves.

Dame Vera claimed to be shocked to learn that Fortnum & Mason stocks "a product so cruel that its production is not allowed in the U.K." Her outburst follows last Christmas's publicity stunt which saw the Duchess of Hamilton return a gift of Christmas crackers to Fortnum & Mason in protest at the store continuing to sell the "delicacy of despair". For these culinary culture warriors, the force-feeding involved in the production of foie gras is barbaric animal cruelty that must be stopped by means fair or foul.

Unfortunately, the wind is in their sails. Last month online grocer Ocado, the last British supermarket to stock foie gras, announced that it had removed it from its shelves in response to a campaign by animal rights groups. Banning foie gras received royal approval after the Prince of Wales banned chefs in his residences from buying or using foie gras. Within weeks of being "named and shamed", six West Yorkshire restaurants removed foie gras from their menus. More than 45 restaurants in Gloucestershire have stopped selling it in recent years after being subjected to threats and protests.

The heart of the controversy is the practice of gavaging. Large quantities of corn pellets are funnelled down the bird's oesophagus in the last weeks of its life to increase the fat content of the liver. How would you like it?" the activists ask. Well, I wouldn't, but then again I'm not a duck. The last refuge of animal rights activists is anthropomorphism.

Gavaging may not be easy to stomach, but it isn't painful for the birds. Unlike humans, they lack a gag reflex. Their oesophagi have an insensitive coating, allowing them to swallow whole fish. The process mimics a natural process by which birds gorge themselves - their livers bloating to between six and ten times their normal size - before migratory flight. Even if the produced-for-foie gras birds never head south in the winter.

These campaigns to prohibit foie gras are perfect examples of how illiberal our times have become; private activities, such as eating, are fair game for moral posturing. They show, too, just how alienated we have become from the production of our food, especially when involving farm animals and poultry. For many of us, though, foie gras remains une fête gastronomique, one of the world's great flavours, on a par with caviar and truffles.

What's at stake here is the individual's right to choose what to consume and what to sell. In the end, as it should, the decision must come down to personal taste. Fortnum & Mason should be congratulated for holding the line against celebrity backed moralising.
]]>Overlooking the Importance of Animal Researchtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11046862011-11-21T04:13:10-05:002012-01-20T05:12:01-05:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-leech/
A Freedom of Information ruling found partly in favour of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in its attempt to gain details of Home Office licenses that allow experiments on primates at Newcastle University.

Last week at Leeds University, another anti-vivisection group, Animal Aid, protested against experiments on dogs co-funded by the charity the British Heart Foundation. Animal Aid claimed that since 1988 over 100 dogs had died in experiments that were "medically irrelevant". Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, said the experiments were 'unproductive and cruel' and called on people to withhold donations to the charity.

Thankfully, Betty McBride, Policy and Communications Director at the British Heart Foundation (BHF), stood her ground. Mcbride countered that such research had "contributed to incredible medical advances over the decades" and that the BHF "funded this work because it will save countless lives in the future".

That really is the trump card. In a week in which minor animal rights protests and tribunal rulings took the headlines, what has been missing in the coverage of these two events is the essential role that animal research continues to play in medical advances and life enhancing procedures.

For David Pruce,Chief Executive of Understanding Animal Research the importance of the use of animals in research cannot be denied, "Animal research is never undertaken lightly, but animals are essential in scientific research, in medicine development and safety testing. Many life saving developments that have had clear clinical benefit originated from research carried out at UK universities."

For example, deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson's disease has transformed the lives of an estimated 40,000 patients. Monkey research led by neurologists at Oxford University identified a potential target for DBS: a structure in the brain known as the subthalamic nucleus (STN). Continuous stimulation delivered by a wire inserted into the STN and driven by a battery stimulator implanted under the collarbone blocks the abnormal nerve signals that cause tremor and other Parkinsonian symptoms.

The development of monoclonal antibody therapies were dependent on mouse research at Cambridge University from the 1960s onwards. This has resulted in Herceptin to treat breast cancer, rituximab for lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis, and many other targeted antibody treatments.

A new treatment for muscular dystrophy, an inherited degenerative muscle wasting disease, is now in clinical trials. This disease is caused by mutations in a very large gene, so attempts at 'conventional' gene therapy have been unsuccessful. The new type of gene treatment based on mouse studies has been developed by a collaboration of university researchers, many working in London.

Three UK groups of researchers in London, Oxford and Edinburgh have collaborated to develop a gene therapy to treat cystic fibrosis (CF) which is currently being trialled in humans. This has been developed over 20 years since the creation of the first genetically modified mice to carry CF gene defects. These mice showed that gene therapy was possible and the challenge has been to develop a safe and effective way to deliver a replacement gene which has involved tests in both mice and sheep.

Currently, academic research with Zebrafish is leading to better understanding of how the heart can repair itself. Zebrafish can repair their own hearts, so scientists are trying to unlock their secrets to learn how we can repair ours too. Several stem cell therapies for heart disease, based on mouse stem cell research in UK and European universities, are also in clinical trials.

Animal Research, inside and outside of academia, has clearly played an essential role in medical advances. This fact is persistently overlooked in the emotive and overblown claims,and reports from groups such as the BUAV and Animal Aid.

This is a disservice to the researchers who have advanced science, and the humans who have benefited and will benefit from their work
]]>10 Reasons to Oppose the 'Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill'tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9995592011-10-07T04:36:40-04:002011-12-06T05:12:02-05:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-leech/'Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill' which aims to criminalise sectarian chanting at football matches.
This is a disproportionate and dangerous attack on freedom of speech and will actually increase tensions amongst football fans.

Here are 10 reasons why the bill should be opposed.

1. The legislation makes a dangerous leap between words and actions. Societies have long made the distinction between thoughts and words on the one hand and actions and deeds on the other. This law assumes that offensive words inevitably lead to sectarian or violent deeds without any evidence whatsoever to prove that. Linking the sending of letter bombs to the singing of traditional rebel songs or shouting of loyalist chants is misleading and dangerous.

2. Existing criminal laws cover key offenses. While these news laws have been presented as a response to the violent events of last season, including death threats and attacks on the Celtic manager Neil Lennon, all these offenses are already covered by existing criminal law.

3. All laws should be measured and proportionate. This law could result in football fans serving jail terms greater than those for rape or violent crime for an offensive chant at a football game. This is clearly disproportionate.

4. The laws are a 'victim's charter'. By allowing the victim ‟to define what passes as offensive" the Scottish parliament is creating a victims charter which will encourage football fans to accuse rival fans of causing offence.

5. Conflicts have been sorted out between the clubs without the need for outside intervention. Both the media and the authorities have exaggerated and sensationalized many of the disputes at Celtic/Rangers games. Within a couple of hours of the televised ill-tempered spat between Neil Lennon and Ally McCoist at an old Firm game the two managers had issued a statement saying that they had resolved their differences and made up.

6. These laws will increase rather than decrease tensions amongst fans. You do not need to go to Celtic/Rangers games to see football rivalry in action. Yet now Celtic and Rangers fans will be able to seize on these new laws as another stick with which to beat their rivals. Even before the laws have come into place there are unhealthy examples of rival fans scouring each other's websites searching for crimes to report to the police.

7. These laws are anti-working class. There is a strong whiff of anti-working class prejudice in the language and tone used by politicians and commentators supporting these laws. Such has been the demonization of fans over the past few years that it's now acceptable to talk about Celtic and Rangers fans en masse as potential bigots, wife beaters and parcel bombers. In the name of reducing offensive behavior political leaders have given carte blanche to insult football fans.

8. Sectarian chanting is more than ever restricted to games. Part of the problem with the disproportionate nature of these laws is the notion that sectarianism is a bigger problem than ever in Scottish society. While many football fans might indulge in some traditional sectarian chants from the terraces in the course of a 90 minute game, most now go back home or into work the next day with partners and workmates of a different religious persuasion.

9. Football terraces are not for the faint hearted. Despite the many attempts to gentrify football in recent years it remains the case that football stadiums are a place of high passions and uncouth shouting. Apart from the problem of excluding sections of society whose idea of fun is not standing for 90 minutes surrounded by people shouting, noisy football fans do not harm anyone and bringing heavy handed policing and draconian criminal laws onto these terraces will not protect anyone in wider society.

10. These laws are an attack on the fundamental right of all citizens to free speech. Anyone who knows or cares about protecting the right to free speech will know that the test of support for this principle always lies in whether you are prepared to extend it to those whose speech you do not like or agree with . As Voltaire once said, "I detest what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Of course there is nothing noble about much that is shouted at football games but free speech means just that - the freedom to say what you want to say without fear of censorship or repression.

]]>Why Animal Rights Campaigners are Wrong About Shark Fin Souptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9929412011-10-04T19:00:00-04:002011-12-04T05:12:07-05:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-leech/Understanding Animal Research I am aware of the activities of animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) who campaign to stop all medical research involving animals. This is despite overwhelming evidence that such research has contributed to many of the drug discoveries and medical advances that have helped to end and alleviate human misery.

In the USA, PETA is currently piggybacking off another human tragedy. Days after a man on a spearfishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico suffered a shark attack requiring between 700 and 800 stitches PETA launched a new advertising campaign. The ad shows what PETA describes as "a human drumstick" hanging out of a shark's mouth with the tagline "Payback Is Hell, Go Vegan". The ad will be featured on billboards and benches near Anna Maria Island where the attack occured.

Sick and misanthropic as this may be, PETA is at least consistent. It has also thrown in its lot with those campaigning to save the world's sharks from ending up as soup. In 2010, Hawaii became the first state to ban the possession, sale and distribution of shark fins. Similar laws have been enacted in Washington and Oregon. Last month, the California State Senate approved a bill that would ban the sale, trade and possession of shark fins inside state borders. The bill has the full backing of animal welfare groups such PETA, WildAid and The Humane Society and a host of celebrity backers such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Edward Norton, James Cameron, and musician Jackson Browne

In the UK campaigning celebrities such as British uber chef Gordon Ramsay have joined in the call to ban sharks being killed for the dinner table. His recent TV special Shark Bait investigated finning, the method used to source the key ingredient for shark fin soup. The fin is often removed while the shark is still alive. The carcass, worth a fraction of the value of the fin, is discarded at sea. In his infamous foul-mouthed style, but acting as a moral caped crusader, Ramsay and his film crew barge into shops in London's Chinatown trying to find the perfectly legal fins as though on the trail of contraband.

Shark fin soup is a delicacy that was traditionally reserved for special occasions. It has been part of Chinese culture for centuries. For years, only rich Chinese, mostly in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, consumed it. However, China's dramatic growth in prosperity has seen an equally dramatic rise in standards of living, especially among the middle classes. This has put shark fin soup within reach of many more people and demand has grown accordingly.

To satisfy this demand, fishermen traverse the oceans in search of sharks. Fins can sell at 70 times the value of a kilo of tuna. Space is limited on fishing vessels. Shark bodies are bulky and worth almost nothing as there is little or no demand for the meat. Finning is also carried out when sharks are "by-catch" (by accident) during fishing for tuna and swordfish.

Conservationists believe finning is exacerbating a critical decline in global shark populations. But there are more than 400 species of sharks. To claim that sharks are on the verge of extinction is headline-grabbing, but an inaccurate generalisation equivalent to claiming that all fish are endangered.

In fact the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) lists only three sharks whose consumption is subject to regulation: the great white, basking and whale sharks. In addition according to Dr Giam Choo Hoo, the longest-serving member of CITES: "The perception that it is common practice to kill sharks for only their fins - and to cut them off while the sharks are still alive - is wrong. The vast majority of fins in the market are taken from sharks after their death."

Even if one doesn't like the taste or idea of shark fin soup, what is at stake is the individual's right to choose what to eat within the confines of the law, regardless of whether its production is offensive to some campaigners, celebrities or politicians.

The attempt to prohibit shark finning is an example of our illiberal times, where private activities such as eating are fair game for criticism and moral posturing. It's an easy target for organisations such as PETA who have lost the public argument over the use of animals for other ends such as medical research and are looking for cheap victories elsewhere. It also reflects the difficulty we have in understanding where our food comes from and our estrangement from its production. Finning may be uncomfortable to watch but how easy would it be for most of us to watch what happens in an ordinary abattoir?

Food is a matter of personal taste. I tasted shark fin soup once, and that will be the only time. Yet if these culinary culture warriors get their way the choice of whether we try shark fin soup or not will be taken away from us.

I will be addressing some of the issues raised in the piece in the discussion, Eating ethics: are some foods morally bad for you? at the Battle of Ideas 2011, 29 & 30 October, London.]]>Can a gold mine save a village?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9888712011-09-30T19:00:00-04:002011-11-30T05:12:03-05:00Kirk Leechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirk-leech/
One mine, below the village of Rosia Montana, might spark a new gold rush. The Rosia Montana Goldmine Corporation (RMGC), a joint venture with the Romanian Government who holds a twenty percent stake, estimates the reserves at $30 billion. Yet this possible reversal of fortunes has been halted and the village finds itself at the centre of an international controversy that sets local landowners and cultural preservationists against desperate locals and a giant multi-national mining corporation.

The company proposes stripping down the hills of Rosia Montana, crush the result, and put everything through a cyanide wash that separates gold from surrounding minerals. Extracting gold from low grade ore using cyanide is a process used in over 400 mines worldwide, including Romania. The project would leave most of the village intact, but part of it and the surrounding hills would be consumed in the process, creating new man-made countryside in its wake.

Opponents of the mine have moved to make the village and surrounding area a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This would preserve ancient mine workings for posterity but kill the new mine. With the price of gold likely to break $2000 an ounce, and with rising sovereign debt, can Romania afford to choose eco-friendly tourism over the one chance locals have of saving their livelihoods and boosting the country's economy?

Today clusters of crumbling buildings and rutted roads lead to a cul-de-sac at the end of a deep valley where the mine sits. Rosia Montana is a dying village in a waning area. Unemployment stands at more than 80 per cent since the state gold company Minvest shut up shop in 2006. Just half of the homes have reliable water and it is often rationed to 90 minutes a day. Over 70 per cent of homes lack inside toilets. Rosia Montanans live on one-third of the income of the average Romanian. One in ten lives on about 6 Romanian Lei a day which is equivalent to £1.25 GBP.

There is no public evidence of significant local participation in a grassroots campaign for Rosia Montana to be added to the UNESCO world heritage site list. In fact, most locals appear in favour of the mine. Of the fourteen who competed in the last mayoral election only one opposed its development. He was out of the race after the first stage having garnered only 129 votes. The only local opposition comes from Alburnus Maior, founded in 2000 in response a public announcement of the mining plans. Its alternative is to boost the local economy through organic farming, small craft-based industries and tourism using the cultural heritage of the area. Perhaps motivated by a fear of the unknown, its original 1000 members have now dwindled to just sixty.

Alburnus Maior's membership may have fallen, but it counts powerful international environmental activists, and cultural preservationists as allies. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the Open Society Foundation are just some of the organisations who have joined the opposition. During September, over 500 activists mainly from outside of Romania set up a 'solidarity camp' in the village to oppose the mine. The irony of opposing a mine welcomed by the vast majority of local people, and the Romanian Government, seemed lost on them.

Ironically as well, RGMC has spent millions to excavate and preserve the ruins now being used to justify World Heritage status. It has spent $11 million USD on archaeological research and architectural restoration and has budgeted $45 million USD for an ongoing heritage project.

Romanian archaeologists have unearthed and catalogued fascinating glimpses into the country's history, yet this doesn't mean that Rosia Montana will make the World Heritage List. For Dr Mechtild Rössler, in charge of European and North American World Heritage Sites for UNESCO, the question is whether the site has outstanding universal value, "This can not be judged in the abstract. Naturally people always say their sites are unique, but its uniqueness comes through a global comparative study."

It seems unlikely that Rosia Montana is quite so unique - the Romans and then the Romanians have been busy miners. Over 47 sites of Roman antiquity have been discovered and researched in Romania alone. Further afield the Roman Empire dug up areas from Egypt to Spain to Bulgaria and even to South Wales in its quest for metal.

One can understand why some may want to preserve the peace of the mountains or simply keep their land, but the people of Rosia Montana deserve more than living in a museum foisted on them by outside interests.

I will be chairing a discussion on the politics of cultural preservation at the Battle of Ideas conference in London, 29 & 30 October 2011. Two days of high-level, thought-provoking, public debate organised by the Institute of Ideas, hosted by the Royal College of Art. ]]>